Horse of a Different Color?

You say Tomato, I say Tamotto...you say Redeployment, I say Cut and Run...

If ever there was a time to pick up the pace and get moving...physically MOVING into action, THIS IS IT! I strongly encourage each and everyone of you to decide where you come down on this, and ENGAGE with your politicians directly about where you want them to come down on this in your stead...pro or con.

I want to say up front that this is NOT a hit piece against the Democrats...it is intended to look at the specific issue at hand. While some of you will see it differently, I want everyone from both sides to debate the specifics of what I am about to say...not the party affiliation behind it.

The news article referenced above describes a "commom message on the War in Iraq" around which party leaders are beginning to coalesce. In this case, it is the Democratic Party...but again, that is not the point. The common message is this:

[..]to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

Let's filter out the Politics of this for a minute and look at the concept. The article states that "a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb" coauthored a nine page report last fall. In this report he

sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007

Jack Reed of Rhode Island-an Army veteran and former paratrooper-is apparently a spokesman for this plan, and says this:

The idea of a phased deployment of troops out of Iraq recognizes that a huge US military presence in the country is straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency, Reed said. He added that many military commanders agree that the nation should be moving toward taking American troops out of Iraq, to better equip the military to respond to threats around the world and give the Iraqi government a greater incentive to handle its own security.

''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said.

''We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."

In the plan, co-author Korb further suggests "all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq." Additionally, in a recent interview Korb was quoted as follows:

"setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

''The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. ''If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."

Now, the rest of the article goes on to analyze the political wrangling behind the plan offered up by Korb and others, and sadly, describes the political gain that can be realized in the '06 elections should the Dems (in this case) coalesce around a message and this alternative strategy to the one the Bush Administration has pursued to date...again, I am not out for a debate here as to whether the Dems are right or the Repubs are right...just to debate the fundamental question this story poses:

Is withdrawal and redeployment the appropriate next-step in the strategy to the war in Iraq or is it a new, electable re-wording of the term cutting and running? Comments please...